We do not live in a materialist culture.

Didn't read yet op I just wanna know how you got a massive W in the op?.

a reply to: boymonkey74


W ™

a reply to: noeltrotsky

Your discussion of materialism is simplistic.

In the following passage you demand a literal only meaning of materialism, instead of the common concept of materialism that the word conveys today.

"Do insatiable consumers stampede over each other at sales events for certain brand-named items because they appreciate the material they are made out of? You would think that if these people gave primacy to the material world, they might line up in an orderly fashion so as not to crush any of it beneath their heavy feet"

It's a common debate tactic, to force a definition onto the crowd and disprove that definition. Sadly it's false and too easy to spot and refute. Other posters have defined materialism properly, while you refuse the definition.

It is also a common debate tactic to hold up a book or the opinions of a crowd and declare it as an authority. This is also too easy to spot and refute. I provided arguments as to why your conception of materialism is wrong, and it is up to you to argue why your conception is “proper”, rather than to simply assert it so. But avoiding the issue and raising a straw man in its place is always the easiest route, isn’t it?

a reply to: eisegesis

It reads like you get it. These were rhetorical questions after all, usually with an explanation afterwords.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Actually I’m not trying very hard at all.

It sound like you’re projecting your own feelings onto me mistakenly. I wouldn’t write if it didn’t bring me peace. You on the other hand? It obviously frustrates you, doesn’t it? It seems to create conflict for you. Understandable. It’s an acquired taste, and not for the faint of heart. If it is peace you seek, you won’t find it in words.

If you’ve read the replies to get the message of the OP, you’ve failed before you’ve even started.

a reply to: darkbake

Materialism is about identifying with materials instead of ideology as a way to be happy - for example, having a nice house would make you happier than worshiping a God.

The definition that materialism is the gain of material goods was invented by Nathanial Hawthorne, the author of the Scarlet Letter, who was a novelist and not much of a philosopher. The word, of course, has a much older, much deeper technical and philosophical meaning than the superficial and idealistically-inclined meaning that people use today.

The same is with idealism. The idealism you are referring to is the idealism of Woodrow Wilson, president of the US. This word, of course, has a much older, much deeper technical meaning until it was first used in political speak, and it simply caught on for whatever reason once it hit the ears of the credulous masses.

Materialism is the metaphysical judgement of giving primacy to the physical, while idealism is the metaphysical judgement of giving primacy of the 'ideal', mental or spiritual. I am not using the layman's half-baked terminology here as they were originally used by these non-philosophers in error, and simply caught on for whatever reason once these terms were introduced to the credulous masses. I am referring to the technical definitions.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If you’ve read the replies to get the message of the OP, you’ve failed before you’ve even started.

Sorry but I like clarity - your message is not clear and if one looks at the whole picture presented one might see what's what - I still don't!

I wouldn’t write if it didn’t bring me peace.

I don't think you write in the name of peace. I sense that you want conflict. You provide arguments and seek arguments.

I provided arguments as to why your conception of materialism is wrong, and it is up to you to argue why your conception is “proper”, rather than to simply assert it so. But avoiding the issue and raising a straw man in its place is always the easiest route, isn’t it?

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Sorry but I like clarity - your message is not clear and if one looks at the whole picture presented one might see what's what - I still don't!

Maybe I can help make it clear what my "message" is: We do not live in a materialistic culture.

I don't think you write in the name of peace. I sense that you want conflict. You provide arguments and seek arguments.

This is how philosophy works. If it is happiness or peace you search for, and the avoiding of arguments, you might wish to try a more religious venue and preach to your choir.

a reply to: boymonkey74

Quote the post and see

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

The material world is an abstraction created by the mind.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
Didn't read yet op I just wanna know how you got a massive W in the op?.

I've been wondering that about Les Misanthrope's posts ever since they started showing up here.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Itisnowagain

Sorry but I like clarity - your message is not clear and if one looks at the whole picture presented one might see what's what - I still don't!

Maybe I can help make it clear what my "message" is: We do not live in a materialistic culture.

I agree with your message, it is clear to me now. However, I don't understand your more complex definitions of materialism and idealism.

I can still take the common definition of materialism and apply it to our nation and I see that it would benefit from being more materialistic. Until you experience what it is like to be away from idealism, you don't know how much idealism there is in our society.

There are a lot of rules that are not practical, but are traditional. LOTS of them. They get in the way of progress.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: PlanetXisHERE

If only we could go through life saying something and meaning something else.

Ummm...You do realize of course that everyone is guilty of that...every single day...right...?

If I were to call you a ninny or boob...does that equate to you being descriptively defined...a mammary gland...hmmm...?
Or would I merely be commenting on behavioral eccentricities...?

In case you hadn't noticed...language and definition are more fluid than fixed...words and meaning...evolve...

If this were not the case...then we would surely be living in a pre-Babel singularity of language...without any "false friends" confusing the issue...

So while I certainly "see" your point...that in and of itself...does not equate concession to your particular desire to devolve any modern usage or definition...


YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

So while I certainly "see" your point...that in and of itself...does not equate concession to your particular desire to devolve any modern usage or definition...

Because the definition is wrong is good enough for me.

By all means, hold on tight to your authorities and your bad habits. However, your allegiance gives them no power, especially when you have no other argument besides "the dictionary says so".

a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Ummm...Well...TBH...I do enjoy your posts...

However...enjoyment does not always equal agreement...It is not bad habit or submission to authority to point out that nothing in life is static...much like the weather...language is subject to change...

Perhaps what is more revealing is how much I disdain conformity...and how much you cling to it...

As to "the dictionary says so"...I'm not so sure that you are the originator of materialism...or...it's definition...much less the sole interpreter of it's usage either in a historical sense...or...as depicted by Marxism...
I tend to think that you borrowed your interpretation from the thoughts of others on this subject...Therefore it rings disingenuous and specious for you to attempt to discredit my argument merely because I linked to a dictionary...
Especially when you brought nothing new to the table as per your OP...

You merely lifted the thoughts of others and placed them on the page whereas I was simply commenting on a single aspect as per your response to PlanetXisHere...while you attempted to be dismissive...in a snide kind of fashion...

That's quite all right...I can see now that rather than rebut my comment...you prefer to rebuff the personage...

I would have preferred if you had addressed what I actually stated...alas...twas not to be...









YouSir

a reply to: YouSir

Perhaps what is more revealing is how much I disdain conformity...and how much you cling to it...

To me it sounds like you prefer conformity. Now what? I mean we can continue to make baseless assertions such as these but how about we back it up with something for once.

As to "the dictionary says so"...I'm not so sure that you are the originator of materialism...or...it's definition...much less the sole interpreter of it's usage either in a historical sense...or...as depicted by Marxism...
I tend to think that you borrowed your interpretation from the thoughts of others on this subject...Therefore it rings disingenuous and specious for you to attempt to discredit my argument merely because I linked to a dictionary...
Especially when you brought nothing new to the table as per your OP...

You are correct to state that I am not the originator, nor sole interpreter, of materialism. Very observant of you. Perhaps you realized I am not thousands, or even hundreds of years old, and I am not the only person who ever lived to think about such matters, and finally put two and two together with your own brain power. Impressive.

You merely lifted the thoughts of others and placed them on the page whereas I was simply commenting on a single aspect as per your response to PlanetXisHere...while you attempted to be dismissive...in a snide kind of fashion...

Aah the accusation of plagiarism and unoriginality. I don’t necessarily appreciate the ad hominem, but I’ll play along. Maybe you’re well informed enough to let me know exactly which thoughts I’ve lifted from others, and who these others are. If I should be called-out on such plagiarism, I deserve the weighing of the evidence of your accusation, and my day in court.

I’ve read your accusation. Do me the honor of letting me see the same evidence that you yourself surely came across.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: Tucket
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
If your a materialist, does that mean youre communist?

No, a communist and a materialist are two different things. Communism is an ideology about the working class being compensated for their working hours.

Materialism is about identifying with materials instead of ideology as a way to be happy - for example, having a nice house would make you happier than worshiping a God.

In practice, communists weren't materialistic because their ideals got in the way of making sure that everyone was comfortable - you can look at the history of communism and how it suppressed people and made them poor.

Capitalism is more likely to be based in materialism, however I think the O.P. is making the point that people get so wrapped up in making money and in working long hours and in worshiping celebrities that they still get distracted from being practical.

In some ways, having the ideal of being rich gets in the way of enjoying being rich.

I'm sorry, I've liked a number of your posts, but the way you present communism here is way off the mark.

First of all, 'communism is an ideology about the working class being compensated for their working hours.' No, communism is the abolition of class-structure, and all forms of inequality, particularly wealth inequality. So also when you go on about communism suppressing people and making them poor because they are too idealistic about communism and thus forget about making people comfortable; it doesn't really make sense. If a ruling class is suppressing people and making them poor, it is by definition not communist. There can be no wealth or class inequality in a true communist society. You've bought into the go-to line of communism in our society, that has almost no relationship to what communism actually is. Even if every nation which has identified themselves as communist up to this point acted as you describe, they would just be openly and obviously displaying that they're not actually communist. All of that definitionally contradicts communism.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

If what you are trying to say in your OP is that everything goes through the brain, whether I think about the meaning of the universe or about buying a shiny new car that would make my neighbours jealous, then yes. If what you are trying to say is that everything starts with an idea and ends with an idea, then yes it's true. If what you are trying to say is that whatever decisions I make, I make it to comfort the idea that I have of myself, then it's true again. Like someone who would give his own life to save 50 kids in a building on fire : he does it to comfort his own ideals, and truly he doesn't care about saving the kids : what he cares about, whether he is conscious of it or not, is to be in accordance with his own ideals. The situation around him is there merely to enable him to test himself against himself.

a reply to: TheJourney

I agree with you, but the way I heard it is that in Soviet Russia politicians used communism in order to gain power and kept the masses suppressed. I could be wrong. At any rate, it wouldn't have been true communism.

I agree that my depiction of communism wasn't that great in the post mentioned, so I can't argue against your point.

Do you think communism and materialism are similar? I thought it was an interesting question.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

That was a well written and thought out post for sure.

S+F